|
DAWN Images July 17, 2005
Alexander's Epic Journey
Alexander is the only person to have inspired every single
generation for 23 centuries straight without being a founder of any
religion. His is also the only name to be found among so many different
religions and nationalities.
Therefore, it seems strange that no
great playwright has attempted to present him on stage, and films about
his life seem to be doomed for failure. It seems that Alexander lived his
life like a well-written play — the story of his life never fails to
create a dramatic effect when told in simple words. Turning his life into
a play is, therefore, like rewriting a play already perfected by a master
playwright. The risk is self-evident. While other historical subjects
allow and demand great dramatic license, any play or film about Alexander
that disturbs the broad historical outline of events is doomed for
failure.
Out of three great films on the life of Alexander the
Great only the first one gained box-office success. It was made in India
and released in 1942 as Sikander. The title role by Prithvi Raj was
remembered as his best performance until Akbar the Great in Mughal-i-Azam
20 years later. The film focused on the conqueror’s South Asian campaign,
his battle with the Punjabi ruler Porus, his victory and the subsequent
refusal of his battered troops to march further. Folklore and fiction
(some of it irksome to a modern audience) was used to beef up the plot but
the broad historical outline of Alexander’s career was faithfully kept
intact.
The famous repartee between Alexander and Porus was the
climax of the film. It is said that after the great battle at Jhelum,
where the elephants of Porus trampled many of the Greek troops under their
feet but Alexander finally came victorious, he asked the defeated Rajah
how he would like to be treated. “Like a king,” said Porus. Alexander
replied, “That is obligatory on me, but what would you like to ask for
yourself?” “All I have to say is included in my first answer,” replied
Porus. Alexander immediately restored Porus to his kingdom and added new
lands to it. Character actor Sohrab Modi, who also directed the film,
played this undaunted spirit. The songs were composed by Rafiq Ghaznavi
and became very popular — especially the marching song: Zindagi hai pyar
say, pyar mien bitaye ja; Husn kay huzoor mien apna dil jhukaye
ja.
In 1955, Robert Rossen wrote, produced and directed the first
Hollywood film on Alexander. The title role was fortuitously given to
Richard Burton, who was in his twenties at that time. His appearance on
the prestigious London stage had often been compared to the images of
Greek gods and to this date he remains the most convincing Alexander on
screen. The film did not tamper too much with history in the first three
quarters of its length, and some dramatic moments in this part are of
Shakespearean stature. The love-hate relationship between Alexander’s
parents, its impact on his mind and his mother’s dubious encouragement of
his father’s assassin is highlighted. The development of conflict between
Alexander and the Persian emperor, and the filming of two of their several
battles are remarkable for historical detail (although the mayhem and gore
of the battlefield was toned down to make them acceptable for the
cine-goers of the 1950s).
The trouble starts in the later part of the film, where the filmmakers
simplify historical facts in order to shorten the story. Historically,
Alexander murdered his friend Black Cleitus in a drunken brawl in
Afghanistan, repented heavily but quickly got over it and moved on. He
then crossed borders into India, fought Porus and was eventually forced to
turn back when his troops refused to go any further. In the film, the
murder of Cleitus was placed in India and it prompted Alexander to conquer
hearts rather than of land. He then voluntarily gave up further conquests
and returned to Babylon for an early death. Such oversimplification takes
the steam out of the complex character so beautifully established up to
this point. The film was a failure despite all its finer moments. It is
rarely mentioned in critical appraisals and even Richard Burton fans are
not particularly fond of it.
The next Hollywood venture appeared
last year — almost half-a-century after the Robert Rossen film. This is
the Oliver Stone film with Sir Anthony Hopkins as the narrator Ptolemy and
Collin Farrel as the young Macedonian. However, the real saving grace of
this otherwise unsuccessful movie is the stunning performance by Angelina
Jolie as Alexander’s mother, Olympias. Oliver Stone, the two-time Academy
Award winning director, seems to have made two big mistakes: First, a
historical inaccuracy in the later part of the film which was not required
by any dramatic necessity. The second is the effort to downsize Alexander
without trying to figure out how that could be done.
Oliver Stone
starts with the best formula to narrate the story of Alexander in a single
film — fragmented narrative. This leaves him with an opportunity to choose
the highlight moments without bothering about the continuity of narrative.
However, he takes little advantage of this device when it comes to the
later part of the film. Stone seems lost as soon as Alexander crosses the
border into Pakistan (then a part of India). The first thing that
irritates us is the filmmaker’s geographical ignorance. For instance, the
kind of monsoon described here is something you don’t see in Pakistan but
only in some parts of India (which were never visited by
Alexander).
Just like Robert Rossen before him, Oliver Stone places
the murder of Cleitus in India rather than Afghanistan. He makes it the
reason why Alexander’s army decided to turn back (which isn’t historically
true). On the way back, the elephants of Porus’ army ambush Alexander,
while the magnificent Porus himself is dwarfed into some kind of subhuman
jungle creature with whom Alexander never holds a conversation (the famous
repartee, “Like a king,” is used up earlier in the exchange between
Alexander and Darius’ daughter, Barsine). It is indeed politically
incorrect and outright offensive that the filmmaker who follows the
minutest historical details in the rest of his narrative should pick up
Pakistan as the only region on Alexander’s route where history, geography
and anthropology all become irrelevant.
Dramatically, the battle
with Porus becomes unnecessary in Stone’s Alexander. Its historical
significance is that it disheartened Alexander’s army to such a point
where they refused to carry on the campaign soon after this fateful
victory. Since Oliver Stone had ignored that significance and linked the
mutiny of the army with the murder of Cleitus, there was no need to show
this battle or to heighten it up with the wounding of Alexander. The
dramatic impact of tampering with historical material in this manner is
most unfortunate — the film seems to suggest that human decisions don’t
count. Although Alexander had agreed to give up the campaign, he could
still not avoid a near-fatal accident (and the fatality of the accident is
highlighted with the slow-motion and bloodshot filming effects given to
this portion).
This is obviously the message that Oliver Stone
wants to give in the first place. The film is about an intentional
downsizing of Alexander’s larger-than-life figure. Sir Anthony Hopkins’
opening statement: “Did such a man as Alexander live? Of course not. We
make them up” brings a typically pseudo-intellectual flavour to this whole
thing and it stays there right up to the end where the same actor makes a
somewhat contradictory statement: “Alexander’s failure towered above other
men’s successes.” At that point, one feels like asking how since the movie
in between has shown us only the lowest ebbs of the conqueror.
It
is not a question of whether one wishes to portray Alexander as a hero or
not. It is a simple question of artistic intelligence. This film was about
a man who defeated the great Persian Empire with a small army mostly
consisting of foot soldiers, conquered the entire known world in the short
span of five years when the average marching speed of an army was 13 miles
a day, discovered new territories and made an astonishing effort to fuse
the world cultures. The least that the audience could demand is to be told
how this was achieved. The film offers a brilliantly filmed portrait of
some tortured soul but fails to establish any connection between that
magnificently portrayed character and the events of the plot.
At
the very beginning of the film, the narrator Ptolemy (Sir Anthony Hopkins)
rhetorically asks: “Was there ever a man like Alexander? Of course not. We
make them up.” Historically, this isn’t true. The film portrays a
brilliantly etched character but fails to make a connection between him
and the events of the plot. Oliver Stone’s Alexander is doomed because
like Hamlet, his hero moves from one soliloquy to another but unlike
Hamlet, he goes on achieving impossible victories in between until the
audience feels completely at a loss about what to make of the
mess.
We hear that two more films are coming out of Hollywood on
the life of the Greek conqueror. One of these, reportedly started by the
makers of the Superman series, will be in three parts and the first part
is focused on Alexander’s life in Greece — just like the trilogy of Mary
Renault. Let’s hope that those films are better than the ones made by
Oliver Stone.
|
It is politically incorrect and outright offensive that Oliver Stone,
who follows the minutest historical details in the rest of his narrative,
should pick up Pakistan as the only region on Alexander’s route where
history, geography and anthropology all become irrelevant
|
|